Click for next page ( 99


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 98
4 Who Provides Treatment? Persons with alcohol problems receive care in a wide variety of health care, social services, educational, corrections, and specialty mental health organizations, as well as in organizations that specialize in treating alcohol and drug problems. Treatment is provided by personnel from a variety of disciplines, including physicians, social workers, counselors, and psychologists. This chapter provides an overview of the various types of providers and personnel that make up the existing treatment services network and reviews the services they provide within the continuum of care. Describing the System to Treat Persons with Alcohol Problems In recent years there has been tremendous expansion of both institutional and community-based treatment programs within traditional agencies (e.g., general hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, primary care clinics, family service agencies) and in nontraditional facilities (e.g., social setting detoxification centers, public inebriate shelters, drinking-driver programs, quarterway houses). There has also been a concerted effort to obtain increased acceptance for the treatment of alcohol problems within the mainstream of health care services; yet many of these newer agencies now treating persons with alcohol problems are not located in traditional health care settings. These agencies reflect the historical evolution of the field in this country in that the major impetus for expanded treatment originated with Alcoholics Anonymous and the recovered persons who established pioneering halfway houses (Pattison, 1974, 1977; D. J. Anderson, 1981; Saxe et al., 1983; Weisner and Room, 1984; Weisner, 1986~. There have been a number of efforts to describe the system that has evolved for treating persons with alcohol problems, but the difficulties that surround this task have prevented the formulation of an acceptable, comprehensive classification scheme that fully incorporates the developments of the past 20 years. As discussed in the previous chapter, the states, third-party payers, and key federal agencies use very different labels and definitions for the elements in the continuum of care; one result of this variability is the differing classification schemes used by funders to obtain data from treatment providers to monitor utilization and appropriateness, to evaluate treatment effectiveness, and to develop reimbursement strategies (Bayer, 1980; Wilson and Hartsock, 1981; Bast, 1984; Brown University Center for Alcohol Studies, 1985; Institute for Health and Aging, 1986; McAuliffe et al., 1988~. Confronted with a similar lack of a uniform national and state approach for describing relationships among the various service providers, D. ~ Regier and his coworkers (1978) divided what they called the ode facto mental health services systems into three major sectors: general health, other human services, and specialty mental health. Their goal was to provide an initial systematic description of the services provided to persons with behavioral and emotional problems in order to make analysis possible. This framework can also be used to describe the ode facto systems that has developed to treat persons with alcohol problems. Of most interest is Regier's view of the "specialty mental health sector." He and his colleagues defined this sector as including those facilities and practitioners that devoted themselves exclusively to the treatment of psychiatric disorders. The specialty mental health sector included a wide range of facilities that provided inpatient care, outpatient care, or both; these facilities ran the gamut from state and county psychiatric mental hospitals, through halfway houses for the mentally ill, to college campus mental health clinics. 98

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 99 Originally, treatment services for persons with alcohol and other drug problems were considered to be part of the specialty mental health sector. Yet the Regier team in its categorization excluded from the mental health specialty sector all facilities that exclusively treated persons with alcohol problems; they also excluded those other special-purpose facilities that treated drug abusers and the mentally retarded. (However, persons with alcohol problems who were treated in mental health facilities were considered to be part of the specialist sector.) The omission from the specialty mental health services sector of specialty facilities treating only persons with alcohol problems reflected the changes that were taking place in the organization and financing of treatment for mental health, alcohol, and drug problems in the 1970s. In particular, this omission reflects the insistence that alcohol problems were not always a symptom of mental illness but a disease that required Primary treatment" within a specially designed continuum of care (Plaut, 1967; USDHEW, 1971; Grad et al., 1971; D. J. Anderson, 1981; Weisner and Room, 1984~. This perspective influenced some of the states (e.g., California) to ston treating persons with alcohol problems in state mental hospitals; however, other states (e.g., New York, Minnesota, Colorado) developed specialty units within their state hospitals (Diesenhaus and Booth, 1977; D. J. Anderson, 1981; Weisner, 1986~. Over the past 20 years, two overlapping yet distinct specialty sectors have emerged: the alcohol problems treatment sector and the drug abuse services system. Each sector appears to have different structural and dynamic qualities that are shaped by ideology and pragmatic survival needs (Weisner and Room, 1984; Cahalan, 1987~. If one applies the framework developed by the Regier team (1978), then the specialist alcohol problems treatment sector comprises those facilities and practitioners that treat only persons with alcohol problems. In fact, what has emerged is a distinct network that embraces not only facilities and practitioners but also funding agencies, regulatory agencies, interest and advocacy groups, referral agencies, trade associations, and professional societies linked to the treatment providers in the alcohol problems sector. In addition to the independent facilities of the specialist alcohol problems sector, provider organizations that belong to each of the other three sectors identified by the Regier team (i.e., general health, other human services, specialty mental health) have also developed specialized programs for treating alcohol problems. Currently, however, more is known about the treatment of alcohol problems in the specialty sector than in these other nonspecialist (i.e., non-alcohol specialty) sectors. He committee suggests that more accurate descriptions arid studies of each of these sectors be developed as a first step toward formulating recommendations for changes in practice and r-wing. These sectors are briefly described in the paragraphs below. Treatment of Alcohol Problems in the Nonspecialist Community Sectors Following the definitions of Regier and colleagues (1978), the general health care sector comprises all of those facilities and practitioners that offer treatment for alcohol problems within their regular programs or practices. It includes the primary care clinician-whether pediatrician, general practitioner, internist, nurse practitioner, physicians assistant, or family practitioner-who attempts to care for a person who is concerned that she or he may be drinking too much. In this instance, there may be physical problems that bring the person to the attention of the care giver and that become the focus of the treatment, rather than the drinking behavior itself. There is some evidence that the majority of persons seen in this sector are women (Weisner, 1986~. The management of the person with alcohol problems may consist of prescribing a minor tranquilizer (e.g., Valium) because the reason given for the excessive drinking is anxiety, brought on by stress

OCR for page 98
100 BROADENING IXE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS at home or at work, or both, and providing supportive counseling. The proportion of patients seen for this type of treatment is unknown. As discussed in Chapter 9, estimates have been made and studies conducted in various health clinics and other primary health care facilities of the number of persons in treatment who are experiencing alcohol problems. However, these studies vary substantially in the methodologies they use to determine the nature and severity of problems, and they rarely review the treatment that was received. P. D. Cleary and coworkers (1988) reported on a study that evaluated the ability of primary care physicians to identify and address their patients' alcohol problems. Although physicians were aware of the problems in 77 percent of the serious cases and in 36 percent of the less serious cases, they did not routinely address them. The need to improve physician education in identifying and treating alcohol problems is well recognized, and efforts are under way to provide such improvement (see the discussion later in this chapter). The general health sector also includes the short-term general hospital that has no designated unit for detoxification or rehabilitation. It may be that more persons with alcohol problems may be treated within this sector than are treated in the specialty sector (Harwood et al., 1985; Davis, 1987~. Their treatment, however, is likely to be limited to detoxification without rehabilitation or to treatment of the alcohol-related physical problems. The general hospital without a designated detoxification or rehabilitation program nevertheless can develop a screening and intervention program to increase the number of persons with alcohol problems who are identified, counseled, and referred (if necessary) to the appropriate specialist treatment (Lewis and Gordon, 1983; Williams et al., 1985). The Roger Williams General Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, initiated such a r~ro~ram. site visited bv members of the committee, in which a multidisciplinary consultation team screens all admissions and assesses those that are found to have alcohol or drug problems, or both. The team is able to identify approximately 10 percent of the hospital's admissions as having alcohol or drug problems. The team then intervenes with an assessment of the patient's problems, followed by advice and referral to specialist treatment when indicated. Most of the persons identified by the screening procedures do not have a previous alcohol problem diagnosis but did have a medical or social complication directly related to alcohol intoxication or dependence. More than 80 percent of those referred for further care followed through with their first treatment appointment, usually in an ambulatory clinic (Lewis and Gordon, 1983; Williams et al., 1985~. lye committee considers this type of program worthy of replication and rigorous evaluation. The New York State Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse is currently providing grants to eleven general hospitals to carry out such screening and interventions (New York State Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 1989a,b). More efforts of this kind are needed. Investigation of Regier's second sector, Other human services, finds similar activities occurring. This sector embraces social services, correctional facilities and programs, and educational agencies in which efforts are made to work with clients, residents, inmates, students, and others who have problems with alcohol. Many correctional institutions that have no organized program encourage volunteers from Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) to come and work with their inmates, holding AA meetings within the institution and attempting to link those who are released with a formal treatment program or a sponsor, or both. Educational agencies may also provide services. Many school districts have established student assistance programs (SAPs) to work with youth at who are risk for or are already experiencing problems with alcohol and other drugs (G. L. Anderson, 1979; Morehouse, 1984~. Some SAPs are linked to a district's health program; others are linked to its school counseling program; still others may be freestanding. The approaches used by various school districts may vary, but there is a common theme that the treatment of alcohol problems is secondary to the agency's main educational

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 101 mission. Thus, the focus of most SAPs is identification and referral. The treatment offered is most likely to be a brief intervention (e.g., rap groups, peer helper programs, education) provided by guidance counselors, school psychologists, social workers, and, increasingly, specialist substance abuse counselors (USDHHS, 1987b). Students who experience low or moderate levels of alcohol problems are treated within the educational sector; those who are identified as having more severe problems are referred to the alcohol problems specialist sector, often through the juvenile justice system. The extent of the services offered through SAPs is largely unknown, and for the most part, these programs have not been rigorously evaluated. The specialty mental health care sector, Regier's third category, includes those mental health practitioners and facilities that offer treatment for alcohol problems within their regular programs or practices. The sector includes the psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric social worker, psychiatric nurse, and marriage and family counselor who attempts to treat a person who has been referred either for a drinking problem or for another psychiatric problem. In some instances there may be independent comorbid problems; in others, one difficulty may have contributed to the other. Treatment is likely to consist of prescribing an antidepressant, antianxiety, or antipsychotic drug and providing supportive or insight oriented psychotherapy. As discussed in Chapter 3, the vehicle for providing such psychotherapy (individual, group, or family) may vary with the therapist's discipline and ideology. This sector also comprises the public or private psychiatric hospital that has no designated unit for withdrawal or rehabilitation but that admits persons with dual psychiatric and alcohol problems or persons with alcohol problems only to a general psychiatry ward. In addition, the specialty mental health care sector includes those community mental health centers, psychiatric outpatient clinics, and sheltered workshops that have no designated units but that do not exclude persons with alcohol problems. The extent of the services provided to persons with alcohol problems in this sector is largely unknown. Treatment in the Specialist Alcohol Problems Sector This sector includes those facilities, those units within larger facilities, and those private practitioners that concentrate solely on the treatment of alcohol problems and that provide organized programs of care for persons who require any or all of the treatment stages identified in Chapter 3. The term facility is used rather than hospital because many treatment services are now offered in settings that are not organized or licensed as general or specialty hospitals or as other health care agencies (e.g., neighborhood health clinics). Some of these facilities are freestanding residential programs, outpatient clinics, and day programs that may be licensed by the state alcoholism authority or by the state social services agency rather than by the state health facilities licensing agency. There is no national standard for making these differentiations, a situation typical in other health care areas as well. Rather, facility and program licensure is seen as a state regulatory function. The specialist sector can be broken down further according to attributes that affect organization and service delivery. The first grouping is those practitioners and organizations that treat only persons with alcohol problems; the second is those organizations and practitioners that have a specialty unit with a structured program which is embedded within a larger organization or practice. Examples of components that constitute the first grouping are the halfway house that admits only men who have completed a hospital or residential primary rehabilitation program and who are determined to be in need of continued support in a residential setting (i.e., extended care); the outpatient clinic that provides alcohol education and intervention services to persons

OCR for page 98
102 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS convicted of a drinking-related traffic offense; and a 58-bed specialty hospital that provides primary rehabilitation to persons who have been detoxified and medically stabilized in a general hospital. Examples of the second grouping are the 250-bed not-for-profit community hospital that has a discrete 20-bed alcohol rehabilitation unit managed by a national for-profit firm; the 100-bed private psychiatric hospital that has one 30-bed ward offering a rehabilitation program and a second 30-bed unit offering a program dedicated to the treatment of dual-diagnosis patients (i.e., those with coexisting psychiatric syndromes); and the minimum security correctional institution that offers a three-week primary rehabilitation day program for inmates that continue to reside in their cells or dormitories. Another categorization of the specialist sector that can be made is to group practitioners and programs that treat only persons with alcohol problems and practitioners and programs that treat persons with alcohol or other drug problems. In recent years, the number of such combined programs has been increasing (Reed and Sanchez, 1986; NIDA,~lAAA, 1989~. Recent national surveys of treatment facilities have found that most persons are now being seen in combined alcohol and drug units, although this percentage varies by setting and by state. Many states now have an overwhelming majority of combined units reporting data on service delivery (e.g., Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Michigan). Only a few states have a greater number of alcoholism-only units reporting (e.g., New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island) (Butynski et al., 1987~. What is clear is that there has been a definite increase in the number of combined programs and that many units that formerly admitted only persons with alcohol problems now also admit drug abusers. What, if any, impact this change has on treatment availability and accessibility for persons with alcohol rather than drug problems remains to be determined. The specialist sector can also be subdivided according to the type of population that a given group of providers serves. The populations seen in different facilities may differ on important sociodemographic and clinical variables (e.g., Kissin, 1977b; Kissin and Hansen, 1985; Research Triangle Institute, 1985; Weisner, 1986~. An early study by Pattison and colleagues (1978), which has been replicated a number of times, compared the population characteristics at four different facilities: (1) an aversion conditioning medical model hospital program, (2) a mental health outpatient clinic, (3) a social model halfway house, and (4) a county police work rehabilitation center. The persons served in each of the facilities were found to differ along a continuum of social competence; those treated at the aversion conditioning hospital were the most socially competent and stable and required fewer additional supportive services to achieve and maintain a positive treatment outcome; those served in the police work rehabilitation program were the least socially competent and stable and required many additional supportive services to achieve and maintain a positive outcome. Some of the differences observed among the populations in different facilities appeared to be caused by ideological considerations; others, by funding source policies; and still others, by community pressures. Research on the relationship of treatment ideology and organization to outcome is sorely lacking (e.g., Gilbert and Cervantes, 1986, 1988; National Council on Alcoholism, 1987; Wallen, 1988~. These earlier studies should be expanded and extende* the evolution of the specialist and nonspecialist alcohol problems treatment sectors should be monitored to ensure that the various special populations that might use these services are riot excluded from obtaining the resources they require (see Section IV). A number of other researchers have contributed to the discussion surrounding specialist and nonspecialist sector treatment settings. Saxe and colleagues (1983) developed an overview of treatment settings as part of their review of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems. This effort was an important first step toward developing a taxonomy that can be used to match persons with alcohol problems with the appropriate

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 103 type of care at each stage of recovery. The Saxe team described four types of settings: inpatient, outpatient, intermediate, and other. The discussion below uses the Saxe taxonomy to describe treatment settings found in the specialist alcohol problems treatment sector. Ir~pa~ie~ Treater Se~ir~gp; The inpatient setting in Saxe's taxonomy was further divided into hospital and freestanding residential categories. Three types of hospital settings were identified: general, psychiatric, and aversive conditioning. The general hospital category was subdivided even further by the type of unit-detoxification or rehabilitation. (The type of unit here corresponds to treatment stage as described in Chapter 3.) However, Saxe and his coworkers did not specify types of units for the other inpatient settings or for outpatient settings, a gap in their framework that should be addressed because setting and stage of treatment are not necessarily linked. An additional hospital category is the alcoholism or chemical dependency hospital, which includes the aversion hospital noted by the Saxe team; 58 such hospitals were identified in a recent American Hospital Association (1987) survey. The survey also identified 874 general and other special hospitals that claimed distinct treatment units (15 percent of the total federal and nonfederal hospitals reporting) and 165 psychiatric hospitals with separate units (31 percent of those reporting). The largest number of hospital units were in California and Texas, although the states with the highest rates of beds per capita were New Hampshire and North Dakota (see Chapter 7~. Freestanding residential rehabilitation facilities, the second major type of inpatient setting described by the Saxe team, may carry out rehabilitation only, detoxification only, or a combination of both. Freestanding alcohol rehabilitation facilities vary in their relationship to hospitals as described in the NIAAA-sponsored classification discussed in Chapter 3 (Bast, 1984~. They can be a wholly owned unit located offsite or in a separate building on the sponsoring general hospital's grounds. For example, California's Betty Ford Center is housed in a separate building on the grounds of the sponsoring community hospital; it is licensed as a specialty chemical dependency rehabilitation hospital, a category unique to California (J. Schwarzlose, Betty Ford Center, personal communication, December 18, 1987~. Freestanding rehabilitation facilities can also be independently owned and maintain an agreement for backup by a hospital for detoxification and the treatment of acute medical problems. The rehabilitation center can carry out detoxification in a separate designated unit or as part of the rehabilitation unit. Many of the states fund or operate freestanding detoxification centers that were initially developed to replace the jails in which public inebriates were placed to sober up (DenHartog, 1982; Diesenhaus, 1982; Finn, 1985~. These facilities may follow either the medical model or the social model. Referral systems for detoxification vary from community to community as a function of the resources available and the community's level of acceptance of the social model or mixed medical and social model (see Chapter 7~. Most communities, however, have two parallel systems, a dichotomy based primarily on whether the available funding sources recognize social model detoxification programs as eligible providers. Such a division also reflects the continued identification of social model centers with public inebriates, the homeless, and indigents (Diesenhaus, 1982; Sadd and Young, 1986~. In addition to their relationship to hospitals, freestanding alcohol detoxification and rehabilitation facilities also vary in their licensing status from state to state; in some states, freestanding facilities can now be licensed as specialty hospitals (e.g., California's chemical dependency rehabilitation hospitals). Some notable freestanding alcohol treatment centers (e.g., Hazelden in Minnesota; see Chapter 3) contain differentiated detoxification and rehabilitation units and in some instances have multiple licenses for their acute care units and their primary care units.

OCR for page 98
04 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Outpatient Settings In recent years, the hospital-based or freestanding specialist outpatient clinic has become a major locus of treatment for alcohol problems. Outpatient treatment settings include traditional outpatient clinics that offer individual, group, and family therapy and clinics that offer f~xed-length day or evening rehabilitation programs. These fixed-length primary care outpatient programs are often based on the traditional Minnesota model inpatient programs. Harrison and Hoffmann (1986) described three such programs as part of a study comparing the effectiveness of inpatient and outpatient primary rehabilitation. Outpatients attended 20 primary treatment sessions in the evening following work. Each session lasted approximately three hours and typically included a lecture and one or two group therapy sessions. Family participation varied somewhat, ranging from nightly participation in the program to one night per week involvement in family groups and other activities. nAftercare~ followed the completion of the primary care phase of treatment and consisted of weekly sessions for patients and Significant others" at the programs along with referral to Alcoholics Anonymous. The three programs differed in the amount of formal aftercare provided; one provided up to six months; another, a minimum of six weeks; and the third, a minimum of eight weeks. Intermediate Settings The day treatment or intermediate setting noted by the Saxe team in its taxonomy has not been given sufficient attention by funders despite studies that have shown it can be used effectively at each stage of treatment (Lebenlutt and Lebenluft, 1988~. As a result, there is no standard definition of day treatment, although it has been differentiated from standard outpatient treatment. In general, day treatment has been suggested as an alternate setting for primary rehabilitation, although there have been instances in which its use has also been advocated for detoxification, extended care, and relapse prevention (e.g., Kolodner, 1977; McLachlan and Stein, 1982~. In day treatment, persons with alcohol problems participate in a structured program for most of the working day (usually a minimum of four hours for a minimum of three days a week) for a set number of weeks. This schedule contrasts with those of most outpatient programs, in which the person generally attends one or two sessions a week for an open-ended period of time. It is not known how many day treatment programs are currently in existence across the country. One reason for the paucity of information is that the day hospital category has been included in the outpatient category in the most recent National Drug and Alcohol Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS; see the discussion later in this chapter) (USDHHS, 1987a). An earlier study by Frankel (1983) reported on a survey of 14 day treatment programs that were identified using the definition contained in the 1980 NDATUS (NIAAA, 1981~. The programs Frankel reviewed were selected from the 156 day care programs identified in that survey and tended to fit the psychiatric variant of the medical model (i.e., have a psychological orientation and use psychotropic medications in treatment); indeed, 11 of the 14 programs used DSM-III concepts and criteria (see Chapter 2) for setting admission standards. The use of DSM-III diagnoses may have been related to the programs' apparent focus on employed adults with health insurance. (Many publicly funded social model specialty treatment programs that receive categorical state and block grant funds through the state alcoholism agency do not use DSM-III or ICD-9 diagnoses iLawrence Johnson and Associates, Inc., 1983; Lewin/lCF, 1988a,b]~. This informal survey revealed a great deal of program variation in program duration, which ranged from 11 days to 18 months. Shorter programs included an aftercare outpatient component; the specifics of the various aftercare programs were not reviewed by Frankel. All 14 programs used a structured Program schedule that included alcohol ~, ~ education through films and discussions, as well as ~nolv~oual, group, and family counseling. All of the programs also required or expected participation in Alcoholics Anonymous. The other components of the programs varied significantly, ranging from a highly behaviorally oriented program to more traditional Minnesota model primary care approaches. A

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 105 number of the programs met at night in four-hour sessions so that the person in treatment could continue working during the day. Several of the programs reviewed by Frankel were day treatment programs that were sponsored or operated by employee assistance programs (see the discussion under "Other Treatment Settings" later in this chapter). One such effort was the United Technologies Employee Assistance Program, which developed and operated its own day treatment program as an alternative to costly hospital-based primary rehabilitation programs and what it considered to be ineffective, one-session-per-week outpatient programs (Bensinger and Pilkington, 1983; Frankel, 1983~. The program ran 5-l/2 days per week, offering an intensive course of seminars, psychotherapy, and AA meetings at the treatment facility (two per week) to selected employees who were identified and referred by EAP counselors as individuals whose needs were appropriate for this level of rehabilitation care. Two days per week in the program were designated as family days; significant family members were encouraged to participate, and a weekly Al-Anon meeting was held at the treatment facility. Clients and spouses were expected to attend additional outside AA or Al-Anon meetings while in the program and to continue in an AA group once they had been discharged. The planned "stay" was two weeks, but it could be shortened or lengthened according to individual needs. For those needing detoxification and medical treatment, coordinated services were available at an affiliated detoxification unit in a nearby general hospital. Aftercare consisted of work site meetings with the EAP counselor as well as participation in AA groups. One of the great attractions of the day treatment concept, both for persons with alcohol problems and, indeed, for any psychiatric and medical patients, is its lower cost compared with inpatient treatment (whether in a hospital or in another residential setting). Day treatment or day care has also been proposed as an alternative to long-term care in a skilled or intermediate-level-care nursing home for the chronically physically and mentally impaired and for the frail elderly. Those who advocate use of the day-care alternative have developed similar formulations of the issues involved, whether the focus is treatment of the person with alcohol problems, or treatment of the physically or mentally ill. Dibello and colleagues (1982) suggested that psychiatric day-care programs, including those that serve people with alcohol problems exclusively, be classified into four major types according to which needs are served: (1) crisis support programs for individuals with acute phase disability who exhibit dramatic and serious symptoms and who require stabilization services to return to their presymptomatic state; (2) growth treatment programs for relatively stabilized persons with residual dysfunction who require habilitation/rehabilitation services to improve their interpersonal and vocational role performances; (3) maintenance-supportive treatment programs for persons with chronic problems who are stabilized and who require long term continuing care and support to prevent deterioration and relapse; and (4) diagnostic programs for persons who require direct observation over a significant period of time to identify problem areas and formulate a treatment plan. The first three types of programs in the Dibello scheme are similar to the the three major stages or phases (acute intervention, rehabilitation, and maintenance) in the committee's model of the stages of treatment for alcohol problems described in Chapter 3. The fourth type, diagnostic programs, is also included (as a component of the assessment phase, a necessary part of the continuum of care and the committee's treatment stages model). The use of day care as a less expensive alternative to hospital care can be justified for "selected" individuals who need crisis stabilization (acute intervention) and growth treatment (rehabilitation). Day-care programs can also reduce costs by shortening the length of hospital stays when they are used as a transition from hospitalization to independent community living for patients who need maintenance-supportive care (extended care and relapse prevention) in order to avoid relapse. . .

OCR for page 98
106 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Some day treatment efforts have been directed toward a particular special population (see Section IV). Zimberg (1974, 1983) described a pilot day-care program targeted to the needs and lifestyle of the "black socioeconomically deprived alcoholic" as part of a comprehensive program offering ambulatory and hospital detoxification, a halfway house, medical treatment, and vocational counseling. However, neither this model nor any of the other day treatment variants described above has been widely disseminated and replicated or evaluated, despite several studies suggesting that, for undifferentiated groups of persons needing treatment for alcohol problems, primary care in an intermediate, or day-care, setting is just as effective as inpatient Drimarv care in a hospital or other tiptoe of residential setting. One such study that became an important basis for policy development was a comparison of inpatient and outpatient treatment carried out on behalf of the Minnesota Chemical Dependency Program Division (Harrison and Hoffmann, 1986~. Using a quasi-experimental design (because clinical realities and pragmatic considerations precluded the use of random assignment), this study contrasted four-week inpatient primary care at two facilities with four week-outpatient primary care at three facilities. All five of the programs reflected the Minnesota model of treatment and were organized around the philosophy and 12-step recovery program of Alcoholics Anonymous. They were also homogeneous in methods and intensity. Lectures and group sessions were the primary components of the rehabilitation approach; the AA variant of the disease model of chemical dependency was the source of the educational content of the lectures, films, and discussions. Total abstinence from all mood-altering chemicals was the goal of treatment for all five programs. Harrison and Hoffmann found that there were no differences in outcome for subjects in the two conditions who were matched for number and severity of their alcohol-related symptoms and impairments. Despite some limitations as a result of sampling restrictions, the study's findings were an important contribution to the policy changes adopted by the Minnesota legislature in creating its consolidated funding strategy. This approach, which is discussed in Chapters 18 and 20, uses a single method to match persons to the appropriate level of care for treatment paid for with state-administered funds. Similarly, Longabaugh and colleagues (1980, 1983) reported on the results of a study in which persons undergoing detoxification were randomly assigned to an inpatient or an equivalent partial hospitalization primary rehabilitation experience. Day hospital patients lived at home and commuted daily to the hospital to attend its Problem Drinker Program (PDP) (McCrady et al., 1985~. Inpatients resided in one of the hospital's patient care units and walked to the same program; inpatients also participated in other activities in the unit's therapeutic program. The study found that persons treated in the partial hospitalization program functioned as well or better than their inpatient counterparts on all critical measures of treatment outcome. The committee visited the program and found the PDP to be a highly structured, behaviorally oriented approach that uses the principles of social learning as its underlying theoretical basis. Like the majority of behavior therapy variants of the psychological model, the PDP begins with a thorough assessment of the behavioral patterns associated with drinking and with a functional analysis of the person's urges to drink and his or her drinking episodes (i.e., behavioral chains). The program uses group sessions to teach patients how to carry out the functional analysis and to set specific goals for behavioral change. Educational sessions and materials deal with the negative consequences of unwise alcohol consumption and common behavioral patterns that are associated with excessive drinking. Volunteers who have overcome serious drinking problems serve as role models, modeling specific behaviors that are designed to reduce drinking. Planned activities, contingency contracting, and social skills training offer practice in carrying out alternative --rid or

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 107 behaviors. Married patients participate in couples groups; in addition, a relatives workshop focuses on reinforcing positive behavior, decreasing family protection of the patient's drinking, and coping with relapses. When appropriate, meetings are held with employers to establish specific contingencies (in terms of work consequences) that will result from drinking and non-drinking behavior. The PDP is an ongoing program that receives reimbursement from most insurers but that has not been extensively replicated elsewhere despite its demonstration of potential cost savings (McCrady et al., 1986~. The committee sees an expansion of intermediate care programs such as the PDP as an important element in increasing treatment availability. Efforts to replicate such programs are indicated but appear to require additional resources, as well as, a series of clinical trials with various populations and unit locations, to persuade practitioners and funders of their unique value. The combination of primary care, and extended care when needed, and maintenance in the same program seems to be related to successful outcome as shown in a number of studies and suggested by several researchers; however, translation to clinical practice may require additional clinical trials as well as modification of current financing mechanisms (McCrady et al., 1986~. Often, halfway houses are also considered to be intermediate care settings. They have most frequently been described as transitional residential living facilities for persons who have completed primary treatment but require additional support and treatment to maintain their initial gains (e.g., Rubington, 1974; Berman and Klein, 1977; Armor et al., 1978; Orford and Velleman, 1982; Pattison, 1985~. In this sense, they tend to be used as extended care for less socially competent persons who require additional support to achieve and maintain a positive outcome. Confusion is created, however, because the same label had been applied to facilities that also offer primary care services and to extended care and maintenance services. New terms have been introduced to differentiate among the various services offered by these facilities (e.g., quarterway homes, domiciliaries, alcohol-residences, recovery homes). Thus. there is no uniform definition among the states of the halfway house and the services it offers. Some states view it solely as a setting that provides a supportive, alcohol-free living environment; any ongoing formal treatment (extended care or maintenance) must be delivered elsewhere. Other states require that halfway houses be professionally staffed and provide formal treatment. Private and public health insurers tend not to recognize halfway houses or recovery homes (the term used primarily in California) as eligible providers, and they frequently do not provide coverage for primary care, transitional care, extended care, and maintenance activities provided by these facilities (see Chapter 18~. Again, studies are needed of the service profiles and outcomes associated with different paths through the alcohol problems treatment system that will determine the appropriate role of such facilities and the propriety of coverage for their activities. Other Treatment Settings The committee has chosen to discuss under this rubric several areas of treatment provision that cannot appropriately be subsumed under the earlier treatment setting categories (although these areas may include elements or components that characterize those settings). The treatment programs to be discussed include those operated by the Salvation Army; self-help groups-in particular, Alcoholics Anonymous; drinking driver programs; and employee assistance programs. The treatment programs operated by the Salvation Army are one such example of the complex residential treatment services that have evolved to provide a continuum of care within one facility (Stoil, 1988~. Originally thought of as halfway houses, these programs are a mixture of the social and medical models, although the Salvation Army tends to see itself more as a social service sector agency with a medical unit than as a specialty alcohol problems treatment sector agency. Its programs provide social support, vocational rehabilitation, and medical services, along with primary treatment, to those persons with alcohol problems who are seen as among the least socially competent and ~7

OCR for page 98
108 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS stable and who have the poorest prognosis. It is estimated that the Salvation Army treats more than 70,000 persons each year. Its Harbor Lights or Social Rehabilitation programs serve primarily men (often skid row residents or homeless persons) who have few personal or economic resources and for whom treatment must indude additional supportive services. Salvation Army programs place a strong emphasis on vocational training and spiritual counseling and are still often viewed as halfway houses because of their target population and their emphasis on job placement and retention occurs concurrently with attempts to modify drinking behavior through various modalities (e.g., AA meetings, monitored They typically offer a longer term ul~;rvenuan mat comprises an 1nltlal primary care phase and an extended care program. Se1J-help groups Self-help groups, primarily Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Al-Anon, and Alateen, are a significant segment of the specialist sector. There are also several newer groups, such as Women for Sobriety and Drink Watchers (see Appendix C), that offer an alternative ideology and model of recovery. Although these groups are used by some persons, but do not yet have the acceptance or the worldwide distribution currently enjoyed by AA (J. Kirkpatrick, Women for Sobriety, personal communication, December 14, 1987~. AA was founded in 1935 by Bill W., a New York stockbroker, and Dr. Bob, an Akron surgeon, who met at Bill W.'s initiative to discuss their problems in abstaining from drinking alcoholic beverages (Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 1955, 1959~. (Consistent with AA's tradition of anonymity, the literature does not use last names, although Bill W. had participated quite publicly in the expansion of research, teaching efforts, and treatment services. He testified before Congress in 1970 at the hearings held by Senator Hughes regarding the need to develop a cohesive national policy and to establish the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.) Al-Anon is a network of similar self-help groups for the spouses of persons with alcohol problems; Alateen serves the same function for their children (Ablon, 1982; Al-Anon, 1986; Cermak, 1989~. AA has grown to be a worldwide organization while still maintaining its basic structure and traditions (Leach and Norris, 1977; Kurtz, 1979; Alibrandi, 1982; Rudy, 1986~. Indeed, the use of AA principles and techniques has become an integral part of the majority of treatment programs in this country (Boscarino, 1980; Bradley, 1988~. AA is the best-known alcohol problems treatment resource. and most lav~ersons consider it to he the most useful (Robinson and Henrv. 19791. Antabuse, alcohol education, group counseling). _, ~ ~ . . , . < - ~, ~O ~1 - - , ~ ~ Belonging to AA demands participation in a program of recovery, called by the organization "working the twelve steps." The twelve steps are guides to the process of personal chance that is required to achieve sobriety. A program of recovery includes (a) paruc~pa~ng In meetings in which members share the history of their problems caused by drinking and their experiences in maintaining sobriety; (b) obtaining help and support from other members in meeting the challenges that in the past have led to "slips" and a return to drinking; and (c) finding an AA member who will serve as a sponsor and provide guidance and help in times of crisis when the urge to return to drinking becomes overwhelming. Members typically attend at least one meeting a week; new members are encouraged to attend daily meetings Ninety meetings in 90 daysn). The AA program of recovery and Its pn~osopny are described In a number of publications that are studied by all members. The fundamental text is the book Alcoholics Anonymous, published by AA's General Services Office (Jackson, 1988~. From AA's inception, its members have viewed their problems with alcohol as "alcoholism-an illness that prevents those afflicted with it from controlling their drinking. In the organization's view "recovery" requires self-diagnosis and acceptance of the inability to control drinking and its inevitable consequences: therefore. according ~o AA recovery requires abstinence. The individual AA group and the meetings it holds are of central importance to the organization's functioning. Meetings have a common structure: one member is elected _ ~, O I- ) ~1 ~ 7 ~-- ~_ _ _ an, I,,,

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES I'REATMENI? 131 skills that various medical disciplines should possess (e.g., pediatricians, internal medicine, family medicine) and also to define the minimal knowledge and skills all physicians should possess in diagnosis and referral for alcohol and other drug problems (Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, 1985~. It attracted medical leaders from universities, national professional societies, and the Public Health Service and formed a consensus that was the basis for a new federal contract program to develop and implement model curricula for medical students and residents. As a result of these efforts, there is now a clearer understanding of the curricular content needed (and the most effective means of teaching this content) to develop the essential alcohol problems-related knowledge and skills for all physicians across specialities and in particular for the disciplines of pediatrics, family medicine, and internal medicine. In addition, contracts have recently been awarded to schools of nursing to define that profession's teaching needs and to develop a model nursing curriculum. NIAAA and NIDA have also launched a new grant program that establishes a medical and nursing faculty fellows program to enlarge and improve alcohol- and drug-related clinical training. All of these recent efforts by the federal government are in response to a growing interest among the general public and medical professionals concerning these training issues (Bowen and Sammons, 1988~. Part of the renewed interest in medical training related to alcohol problems has come from groups interested in primary care, including such national professional societies as the Society of General Internal Medicine, the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, and the Ambulatory Pediatric Association. These organizations, which are committed to providing quality primary care of common problems, recognize the pervasiveness and heterogeneity of alcohol problems and the sorts of interventions that may be effective, including the kind of brief advice and treatment discussed elsewhere in this report (see Chapter 9~. These national professional societies have formed active task forces and have joined with the American Medical Association as cosponsors of the annual AMERSA national conference. All of these developments in medicine and nursing point to a new breed of practitioner who will have received formal education about alcohol problems and who will be able and willing to identify and treat alcohol problems or to refer individuals for specialist treatment. This new breed of practitioners will join the cadre of trained professionals- physicians, nurses, counselors, social workers, and clinical psychologists-already at work providing treatment for alcohol problems. Unfortunately, the dimensions of this cadre are unclear because there is a serious lack of accurate, timely work force data at the national level. This lack of data compromises efforts to plan for future training and professional needs. Fundamental questions for each of the disciplines involved cannot be answered: for example, the backgrounds and characteristics of persons working in the field, whether they are working in the specialty alcohol problems treatment sector or in the related primary health, corrections, education, mental health, or social services sectors; the nature of their long-term career opportunities; and whether there is currently growth or constriction in the number of specialized training programs. As a consequence, it is not possible to formulate a forward-looking work force training policy. Currently, there is no national group or agency charged with gathering work force data and with formulating an appropriate policy on training and credentialing. During the process of completing the report the committee learned that staffing information was to be added to the NDATUS. This addition is a positive development but will only provide data for the specially treatment sector. Such data needs also to be collected from the nonspecialist sector. Recent federal legislation (the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988) gives the clinical training responsibility for counselors and health professionals to ADAMHA's Office of Substance Abuse Prevention (OSAP), suggesting that there will be a renewed federal interest and effort (Horizons Technology, Inc., 1988~. Under an interagenc y agreement, OSAP will focus on the training of counselors and health

OCR for page 98
132 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS professionals already in the field, and NIAAA and NIDA will continue and expand their efforts to educate health professionals at the the graduate school and continuing education levels. Given the lack of concerted, coordinated human resources planning and the questions that continue to be raised about the roles each discipline should play in delivering and in administering treatment for alcohol problems, there appears to be a need to reestablish a untidied work force planning exhort. The first steps in such planning should be accurate determinations of the staffing in existing specialist programs and the role or roles currently played by each discipline. Summary and Conclusions Persons with alcohol problems receive care in a wide variety of generalist organizations, as well as in organizations that specialize in treating alcohol problems. A description of either the specialist service delivery system or the generalist system is difficult because there has not yet been an acceptable comprehensive classification that fully incorporates the developments of the last 20 years. One major development has been the tremendous expansion of institutional and community-based treatment programs, both within traditional agencies (e.g., general hospitals) and nontraditional agencies (e.g., freestanding social settin~oxification centers). There also appear to be an increasing number of private practitioners working in the field of alcohol problems. Treatment is provided by personnel from a variety of disciplines including physicians, social workers, counselors, and psychologists. There have been redefinitions of the roles played by each discipline in more traditional health care facilities, but, in all of the organized settings, alcoholism counselors have become the major providers of treatment. Even though there has been a major effort to obtain increased acceptance of the treatment for alcohol problems as belonging within the mainstream of health care services, many of these newer agencies are not in traditional health care settings and do not follow what have become the established patterns of staffing and functioning. This variation has contributed to problems in describing who is providing what kind of treatment to whom. Some of the agencies focus on providing one type of care (e.g., social setting detoxification, hospital-based rehabilitation]: others attempt to offer comprehensive health and social ---rig ~ 1 ~ services during all stages of treatment to a special population (e.g., tne Salvation Army, Indian Health Service). The dominant historical influence on the field has been its origins in the integration of Alcoholics Anonymous philosophy and professional concepts now known as the Minnesota model and exemplified by the pioneering work at Willmar State Hospital, the Hazelden Foundation, and the Yale Plan Clinics. Alcoholics Anonymous itself continues as the best-known provider of support and treatment for alcohol problems. Although is possible to draw a broad outline of the service delivery system for the treatment of alcohol problems and to describe some of its components, it is not possible to accurately identity who provides what types of treatment to whom because of the lack of systematic surveys and studies. The evolving network of service providers (both programs and personnel) and the relationship of provider characteristics to the availability, conduct, and outcome of treatment have not been adequately described or studied (Gilbert and Cervantes, 1988; Wallen, 1988~. An expanded research program is needed to investigate the social ecology of the treatment system (Weisner and Room, 1984; Weisner, 1986~. In developing its analysis of the treatment system, the committee has been hampered by the lack of studies on a number of important topics: the impact of the organizational, ideological, and financial characteristics of treatment providers; their interrelationships; their relationships to referral sources; and the impact of various funding strategies on the organization, utilization, and outcome of treatment. More research is needed; examples of

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? ~ 22 studies that should be replicated and expanded are (a) examination of the trends in the profiles of offered services that are associated with ownership type (Yahr, 1988), (b) examination of the utilization of different services by the various special population groups (Gilbert and Cervantes, 1988), and (c) examination of trends in reimbursement sources for different types of specialty programs (Creative Socio-Medics Corporation, 1981~. Performing such studies will require surveys that are better designed and better conducted than the major vehicle now available, the National Drug and Alcohol Treatment Unit Survey. Studies of service profiles and of the outcomes associated with different paths through the treatment system are also needed. Specifically, research should investigate the value of providing increased intermediate care (day-care) options at each stage of treatment and of providing social model treatment. Private and public health insurance tend not to recognize day-care programs, halfway houses, or recovery homes as eligible providers, thus cutting off from coverage those persons needing such care. These programs generally are a mixture of the social and medical models, offering social support, vocational rehabilitation, and medical services along with primary treatment. 77ze committee sees an Hanson of intermediate care programs as an important element in increasing treatment availability and effecfiveness. Any studies of the organizations in which treatment services are provided must also analyze who performs the specific services. Human resources utilization in the treatment of alcohol problems continues to be somewhat controversial. One of the major aspects of this controversy is whether recovering persons, who in many cases have developed their own programs outside the health care mainstream, should continue to fill the void left by traditional health and mental health professionals in treating people with alcohol problems. Along with the development of nontraditional treatment programs in the specialty sector, there has been a shift in the usual alignment of staff roles and responsibilities that has not yet been consolidated into a single approach to human resources planning, training, and credentialing. Without a national policy or program for developing such an approach, each state and involved discipline currently develop their own policies. The degree of activity and the particular mechanisms used vary considerably among these bodies. Given the lack of concerted, coordinated human resources planning and the questions that continue to be raised about the roles each discipline should play in delivering and administering treatment for alcohol problems, there appears to be a need to reestablish a unified manpower planning effort. The first step in such planning is accurate determinations of the staffing in existing specialist programs and of the role or roles currently played by each discipline in programs in both the specialist and nonspecialist sectors. Additional research is required to determine the nature and level of treatment services being provided by each of the disciplines in the generalist health, social services, education, and corrections sectors as well as in the specialist alcohol problem treatment sector. REFERENCES Ablon, J. 1982. Support system dynamics of Al-Anon and Alateen. Pp. 987-995 in Encylopedic Handbook of Alcoholism, E. M. Pattison and E. Kaufman, eds. New York: Gardner Press. Al-Anon. 1986. First Steps: Al-Anon . . . 35 Years of Beginnings. New York: Al-Anon Family Group Headquarters. Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA). 1985. Consensus Statement from the Conference on Alcohol, Drugs, and Primary Care Physician Education: Issues, Roles, Responsibilities, Rancho Mirage, California, November 12-15. Rockville, Md.: ADAMHA

OCR for page 98
134 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. 1955. Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How Many Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered from Alcoholism. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. 1959. Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age: A Brief History of AA. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. 1961 (rev., 1987~. AA. in Treatment Facilities: How and Why AA. Members Carry the Message into Treatment Facilities. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. 1979. A Members-Eye View of Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. 1987. A A. surveys its membership: A demographic report. About AA A Newsletter for Professional Men and Women Fall:1-2. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. 1988. Singleness of purpose is central to recovery in A A. About A.A.: A Newsletter for Professional Men and Women Spring:1. Alibrandi, L. A. 1982. The fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Pp. 979-986 in Encylopedic Handbook of Alcoholism, E. M. Pattison and E. Kaufman, eds. New York: Gardner. American Hospital Association (AHA). 1987. Hospital Statistics. Chicago: American Hospital Association. Anderson, D. J. 1981. Perspectives on Treatment: The Minnesota Experience. Center City, Minn.: Hazelden Foundation. Anderson, G. L. 1979. The Student Assistance Program: An Overview. Madison, Wisc.: Wisconsin Bureau at Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse. Anderson, J. G., and F. S. Gilbert. 1989. Communication skills training with alcoholics for improving performane of two of the Alcoholics Anonymous recovery steps. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 50:361-367. Armor, D. J., J. M. Polich, and H. B. Stambul. 1978. Alcoholism and Treatment. Santa Monica, Calif.: John Wiley and Sons. Backer, T. E., and K O'Hara. 1988. A national study on drug abuse services and EAPs. The ALMACAN 18(8):24-25. Bast, R. J. 1984. Classification of Alcoholism Treatment Settings. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Bayer, A., ed. 1980. A Health Planner's Guide to Planning and Evaluating Alcoholism Services. Bethesda, Md.: Alpha Center for Health Planning. Bensinger, A., and C. F. Pilkington. 1983. An alternative method in the treatment of alcoholism: The United Technologies Corporation day treatment program. Journal of Occupational Medicine 25:300-303. Berman, H., and D. Klein. 1977. Project to Develop a Comprehensive Alcoholism Benefit Through Blue Cross: Final Repon of Phase I. Prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Chicago: Blue Cross Association. Birch and Davis Associates, Inc. 1984. Development of Model Professional Standards for Counselor Credentialling. Prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Washington, D.C. (reprinted 1986: Dubuque, Ia.: Kendall/Hunt Publishing). Bissell, L. 1982. Recovered alcoholic counselors. Pp. 810-817 in Encyclopedic Handbook of Alcoholism, E. M. Pattison and E. Kaufman, eds. New York: Gardner Press. Blum, T. C., and P. M. Roman. 1985. The social transformation of alcoholism intervention: Comparisons of job attitudes and performance of recovered alcoholics and non-alcoholics. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 26:365-378. Borkman, T. 1986. The Alcohol Services Reponing System (ASRS) Revision Study. Prepared for the California State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Health and Welfare Agency. Sacramento, Calif.

OCR for page 98
-WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 135 Boscarino, J. 1980. A national survey of alcoholism treatment centers in the United States: A preliminary report. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 7:403-413. Bowen, O. R., and J. H. Sammons. 1988. The alcohol abusing patient: A challenge to the profession. Journal of the American Medical Association 260:2267-2268. Bradley, A. M. 1988. Keep coming back: The case for a valuation of Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcohol Health and Research World 12:192-199. Bray, R. M., M. E. Marsden, L. L. Guess, S. C. Wheeless, D. K Pate, G. H. Dunteman, and V. G. Innacchione. 1985. Highlights of the 1985 Worldwide Survey of Alcohol and Nonmedical Drug Use Among Military Personnel. Prepared for the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), Department of Defense. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute. Brown University Center for Alcohol Studies. 1984. Care for the Chronic Inebriate: Analysis and Recommendations. Prepared for the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals, Division of Substance Abuse. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Center for Alcohol Studies. Brown University Center for Alcohol Studies. 1985. Substance Abuse Treatment in Rhode Island: Population Needs and Program Development. Prepared for the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals and the Department of Health. Cranston, R.I.: Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals. Butynski, W., and D. Canova. 1988. Alcohol problem resources and services in state supported programs, FY 1987. Public Health Reports 103:611~20. Butynski, W., N. Record, P. Bruhn, and D. Canova. 1987. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems: Fiscal Year 1986. Prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program Directors. Cahalan, D. 1987. Understanding America's Drinking Problem: How to Combat the Hazards of Alcohol. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. California State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. 1988. California Alcohol Program State Plan: Fiscal Year 1987-1988. Sacramento: California State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Camp, J. M., and. N. R. Kurtz. 1982. Redirecting manpower for alcoholism treatment. Pp. 371-397 in Prevention, Intervention and Treatment: Concerns and Models, J. de Luca, ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Cermak, T. L. Al-Anon and recovery. 1989. Pp. 91-104 in Recent Developments in Alcoholism: Emerging Issues in Treatment, vol. 7, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Cleary, P. D., M. Miller, B. T. Bush, M. M. Warburg, T. L. Delbanco, and M. D. Aronson. 1988. Prevalence and recognition of alcohol abuse in a primary care population. American Journal of Medicine 85:466471. Cotter, F., and C. Cahallan. 1987. Training primary care physicians to identify and treat substance abuse. Alcohol Health and Research World 11(4~:70-73. Creative Socio-Medics Corporation. 1981. An Analysis of Third-Party Funding in the Alcoholism Treatment Delive~y System of the United States. Prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Vienna, Va.: Creative Socio-Medics. Davis, K 1987. The organization and financing of alcohol and drug abuse se~vices. Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., October 21, 1987. Delaney, T. 1988. Statement presented to the open meeting of the Committee for the Study of Treatment and Rehabilitation Services for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, Institute of Medicine, January 25. DenHartog, G. L. 1982. "A Decade of Detox": Development of Non-hospital Approaches to Alcohol Detoxiffcation-A Review of the Literature. Substance Abuse Monograph Series. Jefferson City, Miss.: Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.

OCR for page 98
136 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Dibello, G. A. W., G. W. Weitz, D. Poynter-Berg, and J. L. Yurmak. 1982. Handbook of Psychiatric Partial Hospitalization. New York: Bruner-Mazel. Diesenhaus, H. I. 1982. Current trends in treatment programming for problem drinkers and alcoholics. Pp. 219-290 in Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment: Concerns and Models, J. de Luca, ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Diesenhaus, H. I., and R. Booth, eds. 1977. Cost-Benefit Study of State Hospital Drug and Alcohol Treatment Programs. Report submitted to the Joint Budget Committee, Colorado State Legislature, Denver. December. Emrick, C.D. 1987. Alcoholics Anonymous: Affiliation processes and effectiveness as treatment. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 11:416423. Emrick, C. D. 1989a. Alcoholics Anonymous: Emerging concepts. Pp. 3-10 in Recent Developments in Alcoholism: Emerging Issues in Treatment, vol. 7, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Emrick, C. D. 1989b. Alcoholics Anonymous: Membership characteristics and effectiveness as treatment. Pp. 37-53 in Recent Developments in Alcoholism: Emerging Issues in Treatment, vol. 7, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Errera, P., E. Nightingale, J. O. Lipkin, and M. L. F. Ashcroft. 1985. DRGs and psychiatry: Work in progress. General Hospital Psychiatry 7:316-320. Finn, P. 1985. Decriminalization of public drunkenness: Response of the health care system. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 46:7-22. Frankel, G. 1983. Alcoholism treatment in the partial hospital or day program. Alcohol Health and Research World 7~3~:32-36. Galanter, M., and M. Bean-Bayog. 1989. A study of physicians certified in alcohol and drug dependence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 13:1-2. Galanter, M., E. Kaufman, Z. Taintor, C. B. Robinowitz, R. E. Meyer, and J. Halikas. 1989. The current status of psychiatric education in alcoholism and drug abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry 146:35-39. Gallant, D. M. 1988. Alcoholism: A Guide to Diagnosis, Intervention, and Treatment. New York: Norton. Gilbert, M. J., and R. C. Cervantes. 1986. Alcohol services for Mexican Americans: A review of utilization patterns, treatment considerations and prevention activities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 8:1~0. Gilbert, M. J., and R. C. Cervantes. 1988. Alcohol treatment for Mexican Americans: A review of utilization patterns and therapeutic approaches. Pp. 199-231 in Alcohol Consumption among Mexicans and Mexican Americans: A Binational Perspective, M. J. Gilbert, ed. Los Angeles: Spanish Speaking Mental Health Research Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Glaser, F. G., and A. Ogborne. 1982. Does A. A. really work? British Journal of Addictions 72:123-129. Grad, F. P., A. L. Goldberg, and B. A. Shapiro. 1971. Alcoholism and the Law. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications. Gunnersen, U., and M. L. Feldman. 1978. Alcohol and Alcoholism Programs:. A Technical Assistance Manual for Health Systems Agencies. San Leandro, Calif.: Human Services, Inc. Harrison, P. A., and N. G. Hoffmann. 1986. Chemical Dependency Inpatients and Outpatients: Intake Characteristics and Treatment Oucome. Prepared for the Chemical Dependency Program Division, Minnesota State Department of Human Services. St. Paul, Minn.: St. Paul-Ramsey Foundation. HaIwood, H. J., P. Kristiansen, and J. V. Rachal. 1985. Social and economic costs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Issue Report No. 2. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Horizons Technology, Inc. 1988. Prevention Training: Final Report. Prepared for the Office of Substance Abuse Prevention of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Oakton, Va.: Horizons Technology, Inc., October 3.

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? ~ 2 - Indian Health Service (IHS). 1989. A Progress Report on Indian Alcoholism Activities: 1988. Rockville, Md.: INS. Institute for Health and Aging. 1986. Review and Evaluation of Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services Block Grant Allotment Formulas: Final Report. Prepared for the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. San Francisco. Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1989. Prevention and Treatment of Alcohol Problems: Research Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Jacobs, O. 1985. Public and Private Sector Issues on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse: A Special Report with Recommendations. Prepared for the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA). Rockville, Md.: ADAMANT Jackson, J. 1988. Testimony presented before the U. S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee regarding the causes of and governmental responses to alcohol abuse and alcoholism, Washington, D.C., June 16. Khantzian, E. J., and J. E. Mack. 1989. ~ and contemporary psychodynamic theory. Pp. 67-89 in Recent Developments in Alcoholism, vol. 7, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Kissin, B. 1977. Theory and practice in the treatment of alcoholism. Pp. 1-51 in Treatment and Rehabilitation of the Chronic Alcoholic. Vol. 5 of The Biology of Alcoholism, B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds. New York: Plenum Press. Kissin, B., and M. Hansen. 1985. Integration of biological and psychosocial interventions in the treatment of alcoholism. Pp. 63-103 in Future Directions in Alcohol Abuse Treatment Research, B. S. McCrady, N. E. Noel, and T. D. Nirenberg, eds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kole, D. M., and L. Mitnick. 1978. Utilization and substitutability of alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health personnel. Pp. 107-118 in Working Papers and Other Supporting Documents. Vol. 2 of the Report of the ADAMHA Manpower Policy Analysis Task Force, D. M. Kole, ed. Rockville, Md.: Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Kolodner, G. 1977. Ambulatory detoxification as an introduction to treatment. Pp. 311-317 in Currents in Alcoholism, vol. 1, F. A. Sexias, ed. New York: Grune and Stratton. Krystal, H., and R. ~ Moore. 1963. Who is qualified to treat the alcoholic: A discussion. Quarterly Journal on Studies of Alcoholism 24:705-718. Kurtz, E. 1979. Not God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous. Garden City, Minn.: Hazelden Foundation. Laundergan, J. C. 1982. Easy Does It: Alcoholism Treatment Outcomes, Hazelden and the Minnesota Model. Minneapolis: Hazelden Foundation. Lawrence Johnson and Associates, Inc. 1983. Evaluation of the HCFA Alcoholism Services Demonstration: Final Evaluation Design. Prepared for the Office of Research and Demonstrations, Health Care Financing Administration. Washington, D.C. Leach, B., and J. L. Norris. 1977. Factors in the development of Alcoholics Anonymous. Pp. 441-543 in Treatment and Rehabilitation of the Chronic Alcoholic. Vol. 5 of The Biology of Alcoholism, B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds. New York: Plenum Press. Lebenlutt, E., and R. F. LebenluEt. 1988. Reimbursement for partial hospitalization: A survey and policy implications. American Journal of Psychiatry 145:1514-1520. Lemere, F., R. J. Williams, E. M. Scott, R. G. Bell, D. B. Falkey, and D. J. Myerson. 1964. Who is qualified to treat the alcoholic? Comment on the K'ystal-Moore discussion. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcoholism 25:558-572. Lewin/ICF. 1989a. Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Data Collection Instruments, vols.1-6. Prepared for the Office of Finance and Coverage Policy, National Institute on Drug Abuse. Washington, D.C., March. Lewin/ICF. 1989b. Feasibility and Design of a Study of the Delivery and Financing of Drug and Alcohol Services. Prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Washington, D.C., April 26.

OCR for page 98
138 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Lewis, D. C., and A. J. Gordon. 1983. Alcoholism and the general hospital: The Roger Williams intervention program. Bulletin of the New York Acadamy of Medicine 59:181-197. Lewis, D. C., R. G. Niven, D. Czechowicz, and J. G. Trumble. 1987. A review of medical education in alcohol and other drug abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association 257:2945-2948. Longabaugh, R. 1980. The Cost-Effeetiveness of Partial Hospitalization vs. Continued Inpatient Treatment in the Treatment of Alcoholism. Prepared for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island. Providence, R.I.: Butler Hospital. Longabaugh, R., B. S. McCrady, E. Fink, R. Stout, T. McCauley, and D. McNeill. 1983. Cost effectiveness of alcoholism treatment in partial versus inpatient settings: Six month outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 44:1049-1071. Macro Systems, Ine. 1980. Final Report: Federal Activities on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: FY 1978. Prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Silver Spring, Md.: Macro Systems, Ine. MeAuliffe, W. E., P. Breer, N. White, C. Spino, L. Goldsmith, S. Robel, and L. Byam. 1988. A Drug Abuse Treatment and Intervention Plan for Rhode Island. Cranston, R.I.: Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals. McCarthy, D., and M. Argeriou. 1988. Rearrest following residential treatment for repeat offender drunken drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 49:1-6. McCrady, B. S., L. Dean, E. Dubreil, and S. Swanson. 1985. The Problem Drinkers Program: A programmatic application of social learning based treatment. Pp. 417~71 in Relapse Prevention, G. A. Marlatt and J. Gordon, eds. New York: Guilford Press. McCrady, B. S., R. Longabaugh, E. Fink, R. Stout, M. Beatie, and A. Ruggeri-Authelet. 1986. Cost effectiveness of alcoholism treatment in partial versus inpatient settings: 12-month outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 54:708-713. McGovern, T. F. 1986. Our professional identity birth, infancy, and adolescence of our profession. The Counselor 4~4~:7-9, 30. McGovern, T. F. 1988. Executive summary: Issues in the training and credentialing of substance abuse counselors. Prepared for the Committee for the Study of Treatment and Rehabilitation Services for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse., May. McGovern, T. F., and D. Armstrong. 1986. Comparison of recovering and non-alcoholic counselors: A survey. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 4(1):43-60. MeLaehlan, J. F. C., and R. L. Stein. 1982. Evaluation of a day clinic for alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 43:261-272. Miller, W. R., and R. K Hester. 1986. Inpatient alcoholism treatment: Who benefits? American Psychologist 41:794-805. Minnesota State Chemieal Dependeney Program Division. 1987. Biennial Report to the Governor and the Minnesota Legislature. St. Paul: Minnesota State Department of Human Services. Minnesota State Chemieal Dependeney Program Division. 1987. Directory of Chemical Dependeney Programs in Minnesota: 1987/1988. St. Paul: Minnesota State Department of Human Services. Minnesota State Chemieal Dependeney Program Division. 1989. Report to the State Legislature on the Status of the Consolidated Chemical Dependency Treatment Fund. St. Paul: Minnesota State Department of Human Services. Mitniek, L. 1978. Manpower issues in community alcoholism programs. Pp. 159-169 in Report of the ADAMHA Manpower Policy Analysis Task Force. Vol. 2, Working Papers and Other Supporting Documents, D. M. Kale, ed. Roekville, Md.: Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration.

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 139 Mitnick, L., and D. M. Kole. Credentials. Pp. 119-123 in Report of the ADAMHA Manpower Policy Analysis Task Force. Vol. 2. Working Papers and Other Supporting Documents, D. M. Kole, ed. Roekville, Md.: Aleohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Morehouse, E. R. 1984. Preventing Aleohol Problems Through a Student Assistance Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Naee, E. P. 1987. The Treatment of Aleoholism. New York: Bruner-Mazel. National Council on Aleoholism (NCA). 1987. A Federal Response to a Hidden Epidemic: Aleohol and Other Drug Problems Among Women. New York: N CA. National Institute on Aleohol Abuse and Aleoholism (NIAAA). 1983a. National Drug and Aleoholism Treatment Utilization Survey. Executive Report. Roekville, Md: NLAAA National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Aleoholism (NIAAA). 1983b. Report to the United States Congress on Federal Activities on Alcohol Abuse and Aleoholism. Rockville, Md.: NIAAA. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Aleoholism/National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIAAA/NIDA). 1989. Health Professions Education Program. Roekville, Md.: NIAAA/ NIDA. National Institute on Drug Abuse/National Institute on Aleohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIDA/NLAAA). 1989. Highlights from the 1987 National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS). Roekville, Md.: NIDAINIAAA. New York State Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NYDAAA). 1989a. DAAA Awards Grants to 11 Hospitals to Improve Ways to Refer Patients for Alcoholism Treatment. Albany, N.Y.: NYDAA~ New York State Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NYDAAA). 1989b. Five Year Comprehensive Plan for Alcoholism Services in New York State: 1989-1994. Albany, N.Y.: NYDAAN Nightingale, E. J. 1986. Experience with prospective payment in the Veterans Administration. American Psychologist 41:70-72. Ogborne, A. C. 1989. Some limitations of Alcoholics Anonymous. Pp. 55-65 in Alcoholism: Emerging Issues in Treatment, vol. 7, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Recent Developments in Ogborne, A. C., and F. B. Glaser. 1981. Characteristics of the affiliates of Alcoholics Anonymous: A review of the literature. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 42:661-675. Orvis, B. R., D. J. Armor, C. E. Williams, ~ J. Barras, and D. S. Schwa~zbach. 1981. Effectiveness and Cost of Alcohol Rehabilitation in the United States Air Force. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Pattison, E. M. 1974. Rehabilitation of the chronic alcoholic. Pp. 587-658 in Clinical Pathology. Vol. 3 of The Biology of Alcoholism, B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds. New York: Plenum Press. Pattison, E. M. 1977. Ten years of change in alcoholism treatment and delivery systems. American Journal of Psychiatry 134:261-266. Pattison, E. M., M. B. Sobell, and L. C. Sobell. 1977. Emerging Concepts of Alcohol Dependence. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Pattison, E. M. 1985. The selection of treatment modalities for the alcoholic patient. Pp. 189-294 in The Diagnosis and Treatment of Alcoholism, 2d ea., J. H. Mendelson and N. K Mello, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pattison, E. M., R. Coe, and H. O. Doer. 1978. Population variation among alcoholism treatment facilities. International Journal of the Addictions 8:199-229. Plaut, T. F. A., ed. 1967. Aleohol Problems: A Report to the Nation. New York: Oxford University Press. Regier, D. A., I. D. Goldberg, and C. A. Taube. 1978. The de facto U.S. mental health services system: A public health perspective. Archives of General Psychiatry 35:685-693.

OCR for page 98
140 BROADENING THE BASE OF 'TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS Reed, P. G., and D. S. Sanchez. 1986. Characteristics of Alcoholism Services in the United States-1984: Data from the September 1984 National Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Program Inventory. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Rhoades, E. R., R. Mason, P. Eddy, E. M. Smith, and T. R. Burns. 1988. The Indian Health Service approach to alcoholism among American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Public Health Reports 103:621-627. Robinson, D., and S. Henry. 1979. Alcoholics Anonymous in England and Wales: Basic results from a survey. British Journal of Alcohol and Alcoholism 13~1~:36-44. Roman, P. M. 1981. From employee alcoholism to employee assistance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 42:244-272. Roman, P. M. 1982. Employee alcoholism programs in major corporations in 1979: Scope, change, and receptivity. Pp. 177-200 in Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment: Concerns and Models, J. de Luca, ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Roman, P. M., and T. C. Blume. 1985. The core technology of employee assistance. The ALMACAN 15(3):8-1. Rosenberg, C. M. 1982. The paraprofessionals in alcoholism treatment. Pp. 802-809 in Encyclopedic Handbook of Alcoholism, E. M. Pattison and E. Kaufman, eds. New York: Gardner Press. Rov Littleiohn Associates, Inc. 1974. Proposed National Standards for Alcoholism Counselors--Final Report. ~ , . Prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Washington, D.C. Royce, J. E. 1981. Alcoholic Problems and Alcoholism. New York: Collier-Macmillan. Rudy, D. 1986. Becoming Alcoholic: Alcoholics and the Reality of Alcoholism. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press. Sadd, S., and D. W. Young. 1986. A Controlled Study of Detoxification Alternathes for Homeless Alcoholics. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. Saxe, L., D. Dougherty,. K Esty, and M. Fine. 1983. The Effectiveness and Costs of Alcoholism Treatment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Sonnestuhl, W. J., and H. M. Trice. 1986. Strategies for Employee Assistance Programs: The Crucial Balance. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press. Staub, G. E., and L. M. Kent, eds. 1973. The Paraprofessional in the Treatment of Alcoholism. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas. Stinson, D. J., W. G. Smith, I. Amidjaya, and J. Kaplan. 1979. Systems of care and treatment outcomes for alcoholic patients. Archhes of General Psychiatry 36:535-539. Stoil, M. 1987. Salvation and sobriety. Alcohol Health and Research World 11(3):14-17. Tournier, R. 1979. Alcoholics Anonymous as treatment and ideology. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 40:230-239. Trice, H. M., and M. Schonbrun, 1981. A history of job-based alcoholism programs. Journal of Drug Issues 11:171-198. Trice, H. M., and W. J. Staudemeier. 1989. A sociocultural history of Alcoholics Anonymous. Pp. 11-95 in Recent Developments in Alcoholism: Emerging Issues in Treatment, vol. 7, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 1981. Fourth Special Report to the U. S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 1985. Fifth Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 1986. Toward a National Plan to Combat Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Report Submitted to the United States Congress. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

OCR for page 98
WHO PROVIDES TREATMENT? 141 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 1987a. 1987 National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey: NDATUS Instruction Manual for States and Reporting Units. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 1987b. Sixth Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (USDHHS). 1971. First Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Veterans Administration (VA). 1977. Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences Service Program Guide: Alcohol Dependence Treatment Program. Washington, D.C.: Vex Veterans Administration (VA). 1987. Annual Report, 1986. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wallen, J. 1988. Alcoholism treatment service systems: a health services research perspective. Public Health Reports 103:605~11. Weisner, C. 1986. The social ecology of alcohol treatment in the United States. Pp. 203-243 in Recent Developments in Alcoholism, vol. 5, M. Galanter, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Weisner, C., and R. Room. 1984. Financing and ideology in alcohol treatment. Social Problems 32:167-184. Williams, C. N., D. C. Lewis, J. Femino, L. Hall, K Blackburn-Kilduff, R. Rosen, and C. Samella. 1985. Overcoming barriers to identification and referral of alcoholics in a general hospital setting: One approach. Rhode Island Medical Journal 68:131-138. Wilson, R., and P. Hartsock. 1981. Current Practices in Alcoholism Treatment Needs Estimation: A State-of-the-Art Report. Prepared for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Gaithersburg, Md.: Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System. Yahr, H. T. 1988. A national comparison of public- and private-sector alcoholism treatment delivery system characteristics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 49:233-239. Ziener, G. 1988. Surf and turf: A historical perspective on past alcohol and drug abuse training systems. Pp. B1-B10 in Prevention Training: Final Report, Horizons Technology, Inc. Prepared for the Office of Substance Abuse Prevention of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Oakton, Va.: Horizons Technology, Inc. Zimberg, S. 1974. Evaluation of alcoholism treatment in Harlem. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 35:550-557. Zimberg, S. 1983. Comprehensive model of alcoholism treatment in a general hospital. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 59~2~: 222-229.